Itachi, even though answering the original question isn't very interesting without reference to the forge, I don't think it's necessary to uncritically accept the forge definition.

The forge theories say Narrativist games try to facilitate Narrativism, which is a translation of a particular stage drama theory into an interactive context. In fact, though, in order to do this, the theories strongly emphasize OOC mechanics and practices. E.g. the "bangs" in Sorcerer aren't numerical-procedural, but they're one of the keys to the game's functioning and they require the players to be excited, rather than annoyed, at the GM's active introduction of "personal issues".

Beyond what the theory says about how to embed Narrativism in a game design, the actual games demonstrate it. Find a game that's held up as "Narrativist" by the Forge and post-Forge communities, and it will contain a strong amount of OOC mechanics such as abstract point-manipulation dressed up in narration, outright narration trading, pre-negotiated stakes, etc., or the centralizing of OOC practices such as bangs and deliberate juxtaposition of character values by the GM. While these latter don't require the players to directly use directorial power they force players to approach the game from a non-character perspective. (I recall one of the key early forge people bemoaning an instance where a player whose character had paternal issues refused to do anything sufficiently dramatic when the GM "handed him a gun" in a scene with with his father.)

Quote from: estar;896352My experience with most self proclaimed storygamers is that they are just a rules obsessed as the hard core wargamers of #1.

This is important, because in this thread there's been talk like "these aren't types of games, these are playstyles".  Well, yes, they are types of games.  That was the whole point of the Forge.  Different kind of games with new types of mechanics.  Mechanical enforcement of playstyle.

Previously, if I played D&D, I could basically keep my playstyle to myself.  The *Why* of what I did was a mystery.  Did I act as my character?  Did I act to tell a better story?  Did I act because I wanted to try out my new abilities?  Did I act because I'm trying to get into the pants of the person across the table?  Did I act because I wanted to get to a breaking point so I could take a piss?

Now, with certain games, the Why of what I'm doing isn't a mystery because there's this mechanic or set of mechanics that put a pile of tokens in front of me and tells me that I, not my character, can spend them to change things when I don't like the outcome or I want to affect the outcome.  This type of game ASSUMES my playstyle motivation and keeps bothering me about using it's system mechanics to play that way.  The game mechanics are in your face, they are proselytizers for a playstyle, as annoying and useless to me as the Mormons or Jehovah's witnesses who stop by every now and then or the drug dealers at bars, clubs and casinos.

Just shut the fuck up, get the fuck out of my way, let me live as my character for a while, and then, maybe, at some point down the road, either me or my character will then create a story and tell the tale of what transpired.


That's what always gets me so steamed when people come along with "but that mechanic's no different" or "that game's the same as X".  No, it's not the same, yes, it is different, it was specifically designed to be different.  Mechanical design to reinforce playstyle is the entire point of the new school Forge-inspired RPG design.  Mechanics just don't appear on page magically, and when you're writing a roleplaying game, inserting mechanics that engaging require you to not roleplay means you're after something besides roleplaying.  Which is fine, but then tell all your fans to stop being idiots and claiming your game is "just another RPG".

Quote from: CRKrueger;896362This is important, because in this thread there's been talk like "these aren't types of games, these are playstyles".  Well, yes, they are types of games.  That was the whole point of the Forge.  Different kind of games with new types of mechanics.  Mechanical enforcement of playstyle.

Absolutely.  Mechanical enforcement of playstyle was absolutely the goal.  "It shouldn't be possible to play Vampire as Superheroes with Fangs!" was kinda the rallying cry.

Quote from: CRKrueger;896362Previously, if I played D&D, I could basically keep my playstyle to myself.  The *Why* of what I did was a mystery.  Did I act as my character?  Did I act to tell a better story?  Did I act because I wanted to try out my new abilities?  Did I act because I'm trying to get into the pants of the person across the table?  Did I act because I wanted to get to a breaking point so I could take a piss?

My sentiment exactly and you put it in word better than I have been.

I keep pounding on the point that the RPGs are games where the players play characters that interact with a setting with their actions adjudicated by referee.

Note that I don't every states that RPG has to have be any particular type or style of interaction. Or that there are any particular reason for any type or style of interaction. The only requirement is that the campaign is about the playing doing something, anything to interact with a setting. If all you do is think of ways of throwing pies in the the face of the deizens of a setting then you are playing a RPG. If you spend the whole campaign bitching and moaning how your humanity slips away while becoming a monster than you are playing a RPG. If all you do is try to live a life of a group of mages living together in medieval europe then you are playing a RPG. If you are focusing killing a lot of monsters and taking a lot of stuff then you are playing a RPG.

Yet every time time advocate that definition people out of the work treat it like it a narrow straightjacket. If anybody game put the straight jackets on it is games like Edwards Sorcerors, Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel, etc. Because they all assume you have to play it one way. Which is the source of my long time criticism that many of these storygames would come off as a adventure or campaign supplement for traditional RPG.

Quote from: robiswrong;896377Absolutely.  Mechanical enforcement of playstyle was absolutely the goal.  "It shouldn't be possible to play Vampire as Superheroes with Fangs!" was kinda the rallying cry.

Which is why these games fail to make any type of headway beyond being a niche in the hobby and the industry. Because the vast majority gamers in RPG campaign are not interested in doing one thing in one way all the fucking time in a campaign. So narrative and story game campaign run out of steam quicker than traditional RPG campaign do.

I have run Majestic Wilderlands campaign for 30 years in the same setting. Why? Because I treat like a virtual reality of a living breathing world. This means there are places where individual worry about their humanity slipping away because they are turning into monsters. Where they live the life of a group of mages. Where they kill a lot of monsters and take their shit. Where they desperately try to survive the perils of the game of thrones. Or just try to keep a single neighborhood alive and safe in a city-state.

Show me the equivalent among campaigns run with story-games and narrative game. It 2016, they got a bit of legroom behind them now. Where are the storygamers that been running a setting and/or campaign for a decade or more?

Regarding all the labeling and boxing:
As far I understood the theories started recognizing that there where common and often insolvable conflicts at a lot of gaming tables (especially when it wasn´t a well honed fixed group) - and that it often boiled down to "you are playing wrong" laking words and understanding where the problem lay.

We had the same problem in the past and after I had read about threefold I was suddenly able to find compromises at least with a lot of gamists (coming myself from the simulation side) and a selected few of (personal focused) dramatists.

So these theories are (OK, where) not for theories sake but to achive somiething in / better gaming - which seems to get forgotten nowadays.

Quote from: Itachi;896335This thread is kinda confusing to me, because I see people using a term coined by the forge (Narrativism) but rejecting it's original definition (play to address characters' personal dilemmas and create interesting stories) while trying to elect new/different one(s). If the intent is to address games which intended mode of play is authorial/directorial (that is, taking OOC actions and "generating setting on the go" - things that are not mandatory to the original definition), then I think Dragoner has a good point in people trying to come up with a totally new label like "Authorial" RPGs or something. In fact, even in it's original definition "Narrativism" is a bad label because it has little to do with the definition of "narrative" anyway.

*Edit* CRKrueger and Arminius: you have some good points. I will try to address them when my work permit. Tonight, hopefully.

I think if the language was more clear, there would be less arguments. Things like the "forge definition" I don't like, precisely because I don't care enough to go memorize the definition of a word that is being misused.

Quote from: Maarzan;896433Regarding all the labeling and boxing:

Personally, I'm not a fan of categorization.  I don't mind recognizing what elements things use, and trying to figure out what elements are common, what impact they have, etc., but "this is an A, this is a B" usually seems to be of questionable value.

Quote from: Maarzan;896433Regarding all the labeling and boxing:

As far I understood the theories started recognizing that there where common and often insolvable conflicts at a lot of gaming tables (especially when it wasn´t a well honed fixed group) - and that it often boiled down to "you are playing wrong" laking words and understanding where the problem lay. [/quote]

Yeah, I just usually think that categorization is the wrong tool.  "I'm looking for X, Y, and Z" is a better one, because it doesn't preclude something which has X, Y, Z, as well as A and B, while categorization typically does that (explicitly in GNS).

Quote from: Maarzan;896433So these theories are (OK, where) not for theories sake but to achive somiething in / better gaming - which seems to get forgotten nowadays.

This is 100% true.  Any theory is just a tool.  Also, any theory should be validated against actual examples in the real world, and if your "theory" says a game should be a failure, but it's not, then your theory needs revision.

Quote from: robiswrong;896443...

Yeah, I just usually think that categorization is the wrong tool.  "I'm looking for X, Y, and Z" is a better one, because it doesn't preclude something which has X, Y, Z, as well as A and B, while categorization typically does that (explicitly in GNS).

...

In these days there was no consciousness and no words for this situation. Everyone thought they know what role playing is based on their prior exposition and thsu the others must play wrong.
Thus there was no idea that a,b,x,y,z is what makes your fun different from the other player. This is something that got worked out while smithing the theory.

Quote from: estar;8963511) There to play the game, mostly are interested in using the rules of the game, and the character's stats to overcome the challenges in the campaign. It unpredictable as to what is the victory condition at but most consider the acquisition of stuff that helps in the game a win(a better starship, more magic items, etc).

2) Into acting as a character with a distinct personality, and unique background.

3) Has a specific story in mind to be played out. Often has no problem with metagame mechanics to make this happen.

I think there is an actual playstyle between 1 and 2 which seems to be where alot of players are. They are there to play a character within the context of the rules. The rules matter within the context of the adventure and the adventure and what is going on is as much a goal as amassing power or goodies.

There may be a rare 6th type too. Players who are there neither for the system or the character. They just like the puzzles to solve. Ive played with two like that over the years. They searched for and gravitated to DMs who were really good at it.

Quote from: robiswrong;896443Yeah, I just usually think that categorization is the wrong tool.  "I'm looking for X, Y, and Z" is a better one, because it doesn't preclude something which has X, Y, Z, as well as A and B, while categorization typically does that (explicitly in GNS).

Sometimes you do want X, Y, and Z though, but not A and B, or just anything as long as it's not A and B.  Which gets more challenging when people claim A and B don't exist.

Welcome Back, BTW

Quote from: CRKrueger;896473Sometimes you do want X, Y, and Z though, but not A and B, or just anything as long as it's not A and B.  Which gets more challenging when people claim A and B don't exist.

Welcome Back, BTW

Or when they claim A and B are Really X Y and Z. Or... Everything On Earth.

Quote from: CRKrueger;896473Sometimes you do want X, Y, and Z though, but not A and B, or just anything as long as it's not A and B.

Sure.  But there's usually some level of compromise that can be had, though in some cases you get the Mustard Problem.  (Being that I hate mustard, and so even a taste of mustard in something is enough for me to hate it).

But understanding which elements are there is a better start to a conversation, I think, than broad categories which contain multitudes.

(Note that I'm mostly talking about categorization in GENERAL, not necessarily the specific of narrativism or narrative fans here)

Quote from: CRKrueger;896473Which gets more challenging when people claim A and B don't exist.

Welcome Back, BTW

Quote from: Omega;896527Or when they claim A and B are Really X Y and Z. Or... Everything On Earth.

And these two problems are, of course, the other side of the issue.

I think the basic foundation of of GNS theory, that there are three types of gamers, is fundamentally flawed.  We may be able to classify mechanics this way, but not people.

That is why I agree with Hulk and others that the only way to define a "narrativist" game is through the nature of the mechanics. To me, a "narrativist" game is one that forces or pushes players to play OOC and make decisions outside of their character's control.

This mechanical definition however causes problems with the literal definitions of the words "narrative and simulation" especially in regards to playstyle.  For example, according to the forge, me and my players are hardcore simulationists. My players get highly upset if I ask them to make an OOC decision.  They view it as bad gamemastering. However, we have never been very concerned with "simulation," and in fact have always been a story-driven group.  My players create characters with potentially interesting stories, and I try to create environments and situations where those stories have the opportunity to develop.  We then use traditional roles of GM and players to create the imaginary space and see what develops. In terms of playstyle, are we really simulationists? No. Are we narrativists? No. Do we prefer Simulationist mechanics? Absolutely.  In fact, even though story is a high priority for us, narrative mechanics are highly disruptive in that pursuit. It is no wonder forge theory causes so much conflict.  It stereotypes and overgeneralizes people.  We don't fit neatly into their categories.

Just an opinion here, but I also think the term "simulationist" is, intentionally or not, at least slightly derogatory as it carries a connotation of being limited, whereas the term "narrativist" has a positive connotation of having a higher purpose of some kind. So not only does forge theory inaccurately stereotype playstyle, it also tries to tell us which style is better.

Quote from: Madprofessor;896585I think the basic foundation of of GNS theory, that there are three types of gamers, is fundamentally flawed.  We may be able to classify mechanics this way, but not people.

Any theory assuming there's 100% [anything] human being is wrong.